MF: "I like discussion, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer them.
It's true that I don't like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book
and see that the author is accusing an adversary of "infantile leftism," I
shut it again right away. That's not my way of doing things; I insist on
this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the
morality that concerns the search for the truth and the relation to the
other." ("Polemics, Politics, and Problemizations")
It was wholly in the spirit of the above that my earlier posts have been
written; if defending the process toward "truth" is a defense of Cheney (of
whom I know nothing), then perhaps I have been defending her. One needn't,
clearly, buy into Foucault's personal morality as is evidenced in the last
several posts.
TC
>
> In a message dated 00-09-24 10:07:42 EDT, JBCM2@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> << my opinion of Cheney is predicated upon years of seeing
> how she, and others like her, despise any progressive notion that doesn't
> fit
> into their canned opinions of how things should be. >>
>
> Isn't this what Chaney bashing is all about? Sounds like most of you are
> angry at her thoughts because they don't fit into your canned opinions.
> Define progressive before you assume Foucault's thoughts (or yours) are.
> Would you give her any respect if you did not know her political position? I
> do NOT support her, politically or otherwise, and I certainly am not even
> close to identifying with right wingers, but let her speak. That's the point.
> John
It's true that I don't like to get involved in polemics. If I open a book
and see that the author is accusing an adversary of "infantile leftism," I
shut it again right away. That's not my way of doing things; I insist on
this difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the
morality that concerns the search for the truth and the relation to the
other." ("Polemics, Politics, and Problemizations")
It was wholly in the spirit of the above that my earlier posts have been
written; if defending the process toward "truth" is a defense of Cheney (of
whom I know nothing), then perhaps I have been defending her. One needn't,
clearly, buy into Foucault's personal morality as is evidenced in the last
several posts.
TC
>
> In a message dated 00-09-24 10:07:42 EDT, JBCM2@xxxxxxx writes:
>
> << my opinion of Cheney is predicated upon years of seeing
> how she, and others like her, despise any progressive notion that doesn't
> fit
> into their canned opinions of how things should be. >>
>
> Isn't this what Chaney bashing is all about? Sounds like most of you are
> angry at her thoughts because they don't fit into your canned opinions.
> Define progressive before you assume Foucault's thoughts (or yours) are.
> Would you give her any respect if you did not know her political position? I
> do NOT support her, politically or otherwise, and I certainly am not even
> close to identifying with right wingers, but let her speak. That's the point.
> John